what kind of excuse is this again? You want to win a game, you need to destroy enemies, how the hell can you win if you cant hurt one player? not to mention most of the time, there are almost 4 battle class ships on that team… this has to be adressed already !!!
Step 1: Remove bots, not just talking about removing bots.
Cough Later French Naval Cough
…Seriously, why did they decide to add all the PRE-AA refit ships possible?
2 Likes
Sink bots - it’s what I do.
I figure out what I CAN do - and then do my best to do it.
So what?
What has to be addressed - cruisers having a hard time vs battleships?
That seems perfectly reasonable to me - just like destroyers having a hard time vs cruisers, and every other time lower BR vessels have a hard time vs higher BR vessels.
As this is part of that transitionary problem Naval faces as you up the weight class, I think this part could possibly be softened by adding a more defined transition BR bracket for Battlecruisers, perhaps a bit analogous to how coastal boats have access to frigates to stand a little more chance against destroyers. That way you have the guns to actually damage battleships but armor light enough the late cruisers can get a punch in.
1 Like
Something seems to be off about the 5"/38 mounts, in other words pretty much the entire US Destroyer tree plus the secondary armaments on their Capitals. UK 4" seems to be similar… Haven’t tested the others.
As per this…
USA 5"/38 (12.7 cm) Mark 12 - NavWeaps
Time of flight out to 10,000 yards should be 20.81 seconds for a 25kg shell, which all of the ammo natures are.
Yet if you test it, the time of flight is 15.2 seconds. The stats screen for the projectile claims a muzzle velocity of 2600 fps yet to reach 10,000 yards in 15 seconds implies a muzzle velocity well over 1000 m/s.
Other ranges seem to be off by similar percentages. Bit difficult to tell on 1k, 2k yards but becomes very noticeable at 4k, 6k etc.
Far harder hitting something which isn’t stationary with a 21 second lead time than 15…
Haven’t all the other calibres, are they all off or is it just the 5"/38 and 4"? This chart shows the time of flight for such…
http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNBR_4-45_mk16.php
If the ballistics are wrong, which they clearly are, then presumably the terminal effects are wrong too. For instance the terminal angle should likely be steeper leading to them hitting armour plates at less effective angles etc. They would retain less terminal velocity hence penetrate less given the fuse settings.
For instance at 10k yards with a 0.01 second fuse the terminal velocity should be 1000 fps. Hence the explosive charge would activate no more than 10 feet into the ship. Which would be good for turrets but engines, magazines etc would simply be out of reach provided they’d hit hull or armour prior.
What’s the point in trying to get accurate armour plans when the sodding guns are massively out performing their historical abilities?
1 Like
Think it would be better to ask @HK Reporter about this one.
Why can’t I mention you HK?
I would but I know that on new forums we can´t tag anyone with space in their name so I knew it would be impossible to tag HK Reporter
Well Mag will probably try to bring HK in anyway I guess.
To continue the discussion on improving naval, here are some other suggestions raised in the old forum that could use some more love; this time focusing on the Crew and how it relates to the current gamemode:
-
[Naval] Replace Crew Hitpoints with Sinking as the Primary Means to Kill a Ship - Gameplay - War Thunder - Official Forum
A revision of the ship’s defeat condition from running out of crew at some point and your ship just suddenly realizing their desire to become a coral reef habitat to actually your ship struggling to keep the flooding at bay as your crew no longer can keep up with the damage control while manning their stations. Now I know the idea of “Not Enough Crew Members to Repair” is something of a legacy of how Ground Battles does things, as mission kill (loss of vehicle because an essential component is broken but all crew is alive) isn’t a thing, but the way it’s currently implemented just makes the game end up feeling like a health bar in disguise, something anti-thesis to WT’s whole gameplay loop. Not to mention the UI readout in regard to crew loss in the damage indicator is something I’ve never been able to figure out. There’s an indication of how much crew is left out of the total on the top left then on the bottom left there’s a percentage of crew? Aside from being seemingly redundant, the two value doesn’t seem to even match each other’s value; with, say, 268/273 which is 98% but the Percentage value instead provides 84%? I know there is something about crew skills among all these calculations but to say it’s not intuitive is an understatement. -
Allow naval ships to "uncrew" secondaries and AA guns to mitigate HE spam, boost repair speed - Gameplay - War Thunder - Official Forum (my reposted suggestion of the same idea)
Now I wish this idea was implemented to reverse the intention of the OP. I’ve already mentioned my issues with the current nerf to HE ad nauseam in this thread alone, so I will avoid restating it here. But that being said I think this is a solution that could be easily implemented to offer the best of both worlds. Combined with the existing “target surface target/air target/both” feature (with a little cooldown so you have to plan ahead), those commands now dictate which parts of your ship are manned. This idea might also be effective at weakening the (current) bots as they tend to set their secondaries/AA to fire on all targets; meaning those positions are manned at all times and therefore will suffer greater crew casualties from surface combat. The alternative will just make them vulnerable to CAS or sneaky patrol boats.
As we are speaking of Crew and their implementation, I guess now is a good time to talk about the Crew Skills in Naval that have caught my eye:
-
Enemy Torpedo Spotting Distance crew skill needs an overhaul. Currently, it’s broken (again), but even if it works as intended, it would be utterly useless beyond a certain stage. While I can understand its application when it was made at the very start of Naval game mode with speedboats and the like, the max distance of 10 metres is absolutely useless for larger ships. Instead, I believe the detection range should be based on the size of your ship, say each “bar” represents a percentage of your vessel’s length, with a filled-out skill allowing you to see the full length of your ship outwards or something.
-
- On a related note, mine spotting doesn’t work at all. You will hear the sound warning you of a mine in your proximity but it is not highlighted even if I’m virtually next to it. I doubt this is the intended effect for Naval RB (if it is, let me know).
Other Suggestions To Consider (for now, I’m sure we’d find more over time):
- [Naval] Main and Auxiliary Caliber Shooting with One Button - Change to a Key Bind - Interface - War Thunder - Official Forum
- Radar Overhaul for Naval forces - Gameplay - War Thunder - Official Forum
- Naval Battle Re-Armament Improvement - Gameplay - War Thunder - Official Forum
- Improved underwater-travel physics for naval shells - Gameplay - War Thunder - Official Forum
- This ties to the previous discussion on this thread and got Passed for Consideration in the old forum, but I don’t know if still being considered so here it is anyway: Searchlight for Naval battle - Passed for Consideration - War Thunder - Official Forum
Less Pressing Issues:
- Some map requires their Level Of Details to be redone to avoid such a dramatic pop-in on island features. The most dramatic of this case is probably the African Gulf map where the entire top of the island just derenders. While it doesn’t affect gameplay aside from you sometimes being able to see enemies that you shouldn’t be able to, it does make the game feel less polished than it could be.
7 Likes
After quite sometimes and also after the “big” updates before. the good things is they add “bot” on the reporting players. but still bots still arround and ruined gameplay. at some point you can exploit it to your adventage but most of the time it just ruined it.
Gaijin got a lot things to fix Naval Gameplay, especially the bots for me
It would be really cool if naval got night battles again, it doesn’t seem as big of a deal for naval and also there are battles like Cape Esperance that happened in real life. This might need something like Sea Search radar to be modeled on some ships, or not (it isn’t really that hard to just look) and also the tracers in naval at night just look cool.
6 Likes
Naval night battles would be great, yes. Gameplay wise they wouldn’t really make much of a difference, but they would make random battles a lot more fun and varied.
In terms of gameplay, even if you can’t see the ships you can still see the muzzle flashes, locking on is a thing, the rangefinder gives you lead estimates, and so on. Hell, it might even give smaller ships a better chance at sneaking up to larger ships (night torpedo attacks woooo)
8 Likes
The way I see it, different gameplay night battles brings could be something like make locking on target quite hard - kind of like how locking on merchant ships in the Encounter gamemode or perhaps only locking on a target if you are actually pointing at them (as opposed to just hitting X and it locks on somewhere) and add time to rangefinding and ballistic calculations. To get around this your ship needs a surface search radar, or (as an IJN main, I push for this) searchlights. Searchlights would also allow you to “blind” the ship you are targeting, preventing them from targeting you (unless they have radar) at the cost of being a very visible and selectable target for the enemy team.
1 Like
Talking of targeting and signalling… Think I’ve mentioned what a nonsense the whole ‘shooting someone behind an island with perfect information because someone else has spotted them’ thing is.
There also doesn’t appear to be any realisation from the Gaijin devs that visibility was limited in naval combat. Sure Capital ships could throw rocks at each other from quite a range but destroyers engaging at 16,000 yards? Haven’t worked it out but doubt they’d even be able to see a target due to the visual horizon. Maybe just some smoke on the horizon. The larger the ship, the taller the observation platform, or unfinished Jenga game pagoda in the Japanese cases, the longer the visual horizon was.
Some titchy little MTB probably wouldn’t be able to see much further than the range of their pom poms. A DD or Capital though would be able to see them.
We have rangefinders though they don’t appear to really do anything. Had a game the other day where some chap in a moffat kept hitting mine. I still seemed to get the range data, though if the fire controller went then I’d lose the firing solution. So what’s the point? Course this was at about 14,000 yards so I doubt we ‘should’ even have been able to see each other, maybe just about… Certainly not the fall of shot. But if everyone on your upper decks and bridge is dead then how are you seeing further than single digit thousands of yards?
Doubt it will come as any surprise to the player base that the devs are literally flat earthers. :)
There’s no end of other things which could affect visibility. rain, storms, haze, fog banks, squalls. Even something as obvious as sea state. Try hitting something at 14,000 yards with an unstabilised gun in a big swell. Or for that matter the direction and periodicity of the waves. Can think of lots of DDs who badly damaged themselves trying to flank into head seas. If the ship is 100m long and the waves are 100m apart then that’s a pretty big problem. If the same is beam on then you’ll be rocking and rolling all over the shop, but also probably out of sight intermittently.
I mean, if it’s meant to all be arcade only with a few stats copied from wikipedia then fine. If on the other hand it is meant to somewhat simulate things then maybe get in a dinghy some time, read a few books about it etc.
5 Likes
I do believe that I’ve read somewhere of some sort of detection mechanic already in the game based on how high your mast is or something like that. The rest seems tied to the radio mechanic in the Crew Skills as raised in the last time this discussion came up; although I can’t tell you for sure since I never really touch that skill since I thought it was Arcade Mode specific.
According to the X-ray view’s tooltip thing, the rangefinder’s destruction leads to the loss of lead point calculation, not actually finding the range of your target (so the same as losing your fire controller). Not terribly intuitive, to be honest, I thought that the destruction of the rangefinder would at least slow down your ability to get range (unless it is all destroyed then you get no ranging calculations) but guess not.
2 Likes
Lack of modeling of visual horizon is indeed problem but it needs to be said that modeling it properly would be very hard and halfassed solution like ships poping into existence is really bad.
And for current map sizes it would only be a factor for boats even frigates are tall enough to confratbly see whole map for current map selection. Even DDs have the rangefinder at height of around 10+ metres above the water, meaning that the horizon is 11,3 km evay and in case of ships they can easily see ships almoast 20km evay.
Well actually at this range the USS Moffet which has the rangefinder more the 14m above the water is perfectly capable to observe the waterline at distance of 13 km (which is more then the 14000 yards) and ship of this size is perfectly capable to observe enemy ships at distance of 20km or so.
Yes the rain, storms, haze, fog banks, squalls missing is indeed sad. But sea stat can be noticable at longer ranges and smaller ships like DDs or even some cruisers if the ships is oriented badly towards the waves.
It is somewhat of a engine limitation that the waves are entirely homogonus across whole map meaning that they need to be smaller to allow PT boats to do anythings and honestly even if this wasn´t the case the community would likely oppose this like they did with the waves before.
1 Like
Of the lines I’ve played all the rangefinders and fire control seem to be pretty much the same. Update every 10 seconds, all seem to give very accurate ranges. If there are differences then I haven’t really noticed them.
Seems they’ve artificially buffed lighter calibres to be easily over the horizon capable ( the ballistics for 4" to 5" seem to be outrageously enhanced which they claim is an engine limitation but really isn’t) rather than the legitimate potential flavour of the fire control systems.
So they want their Russian and American ships to be oh so superior but have done it in a really daft and nonsensical way which defies the laws of physics. German fire control was outstanding for instance - until it took a hit or two at which point it went to pot rather quickly.
So correctly judging the range to a ship would require it’s identification first ( hull length which gives bearing), the longer the range finders and the further apart individual range finders are the better, assuming they are working. Crew skills are quite legitimate here though what they currently do seems a bit arcane and naff. What on earth does ‘absolute identification’ at a whole 49 yards mean or do? Surface target detection at 1500 yards?
Might seem nitpicky but consider how subs are going to work. Doubt they’ve even considered or likely knew about visual horizons though a periscope 1 yard above the surface should only see a few thousand yards and certainly wouldn’t have the full moving map and link16 information relayed by other units.
Until you have subs you don’t have the rock paper scissors of sub > BB > DD > sub. And without visual horizons / information the subs are going to be a nightmare for balance which will inevitably result in Gaijin doing really stupid things.
1 Like
Do you want to do the bug report for this or should I do it?